Miles Nordin wrote: > mb> if I'm risking it more than usual when the procedure is done? > > yeah, that is my opinion: when the procedure is done, using ZFS > without a backup is risking the data more than using UFS or ext3 > without a backup. Is that a clear statement? > > > I can ramble on, but maybe that's all you care to hear. >
Thanks all for your input. I guess basically the idea is sound for my needs; however, Miles' words made me do my homework and read the mail archives. So I don't know ... The idea of loosing a complete zpool just because the power goes out (which does happen once of twice a year here), or simply because of the fact that I will be running on toy hardware, is really not comfortable. I'm quite confident ext3 will never do that to me. In a mail from last month Jeff Bonwick wrote on this list that he's working on better recovery from inconsistent filesystems. I guess that's something I should wait for. -- ---- Martin Blom --------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Eccl 1:18 http://martin.blom.org/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
